Falling from Great Heights

[pemerton]

The PCs are James Bond, Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker. None of those would be killed by a big fall. Something would happen, or they'd do something cool, or land on something lucky. Those are hit points.

This is true, but gives rise to the question that was raised upthread (I think by Eldritch_Lord): can the PCs plan around having this sort of luck?

And yet, and yet, none of the heroes ever thinks twice about diving into these situations. They never balk at jumping off the bridge, they never stop at the door of the airplane and say, "Bugger that!"

I agree with this too, and it is about the best answer to the "planning" issue. D&D gameplay works around this issue of hp being metagame by encouraging a certain sort of (James Bond or Lucas-esque) style of scenario design - the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access.

The more gritty and operational your D&D play becomes, the harder, in my view, to make sense of hit points in play. One work around is to transmute them into an ingame resource, namely divine favour or similar magical ability, and assume that the PCs are planning their activities around that.

Of course you can treat them as "meat", but the flavour of hp-as-meat doesn't (in my view, at least) fit well with gritty, operational play.

 

[pemerton]

The problem here isn't that high-level characters are nigh unto gods (which they are) or that bunches of mooks aren't a threat (which they aren't) but that (A) you were metagaming "Oh, the DM wouldn't send a non-level-appropriate encounter against us" and (B) you decided to slaughter the guards despite being a theoretically good party.

I also think the GM may have made a mistake trying to use the threat of force as a plot point and wasn't prepared to handle it when the PCs, instead of inferring to the wickedness of their patron, inferred to the wickedness of the guards.

 

[BryonD]

And yet, and yet, none of the heroes ever thinks twice about diving into these situations. They never balk at jumping off the bridge, they never stop at the door of the airplane and say, "Bugger that!"

Huh?

You listed Bond, Skywalker, and Indianan Jones.
In the movies Bond comes *closest* to what you claim here. But he still avoids deadly situations. And as an avid Bond fan, I'd point out that in the Flemming books it is a running cliche that he doesn't expect to live. When he dives in he completely expects that he WILL DIE, but he is able to accept that and accomplish the goal of the moment. Then through luck and sheer badassness he comes out alive. And as a *reader* you are not surprised. But the character is very much surprised to be alive. So, yes, when he is at the open door of the airplane, he doesn't hesitate. But not hesitating to accept death as a consequence is radically different than presuming his hero status will keep him alive.

For Skywalker the entire trilogy has a theme of him overcoming fear. He is constantly afraid. Particularly as you get to RotJ there are situation in which he knows that he can survive because of his Jedi powers. So that isn't the same. I'm perfectly ok with D&D heroes knowing they can easily live through certain things that could kill ME in a split second. But the standard you are embracing here is drinking a carboy of poison. That is still deadly. Any time Luke faces something deadly he shows a great deal of fear.

And Jones is simple. He is practically the opposite of Bond. He flees from scary situations all the time. It is only when he is trapped between a rock and a hard place that he goals full on and finds away through. Again, the people in the theater seats know he will live. But the people in the theater seats also know that Jones DOESN'T know he is going to live. And knowing that dichotomy between what Jones thinks and how it is going to work out is actually a big part of the fun of those movies. If the audience thought that Jones had some kind of third wall awareness of his immunity to actually getting killed, the movies would suck.

So, it's roleplay. You know that Bond jumping out of the airplane is going to survive, yet, we're all at the edge of the seat waiting to see how he survives.

It's not the results that makes it interesting, it's how they get there.

No. What YOU just described REALLY is the essence of that slanderous term ROLLPLAY.
What you described is pure mechanics and predestination.
What you described is actively avoiding being inside JONES or BONDS head and having those thoughts but is instead inside the audience members head having those thoughts and metaknowledge that the characters can and should never ever have.
Roleplay is about being inside the role with the knowledge, experiences and fears of that guy. That is absolutely NOT what you have described.

Really? By L15, the wizard, by himself, can level a city.

Possibly. I don't know that I'd concede that. But for sake of argument, ok.

And I'd still call that orders of magnitude short of "god".

 

[BryonD]

I agree with this too, and it is about the best answer to the "planning" issue. D&D gameplay works around this issue of hp being metagame by encouraging a certain sort of (James Bond or Lucas-esque) style of scenario design - the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access.

So are you actually stating that in your perception of these movies the characters actually somehow have this meta knowledge? Are you saying that inside their head is not just a hope but a secret knowledge of the rules not applying to them and a stacked deck to keep them alive.

The meta information exists. That is fine.
But the heart of the greatness of the roleplay experience, IMO, is moving from the audience chair to being actually between the ears of the star. And if you carry this meta information with you then you have failed to truly get there.

 

[BryonD]

That shouldn't prevent the Hulk from staring at her nonchalantly and making catcalls because he's just that tough, because the assumptions for realistic vs. superhuman heroes are different.

One glance turned the Kraken to stone.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think you missed the point though. 25 trained archers and 25 bandits (a handful - if you have large hands ) are by no means anywhere near the threat of a colossal red dragon. They just aren't.

But, my very high level character is expected to face colossal dragons and win. So, for your archers to be a credible threat, they have to do as much damage as a colossal red dragon.

4e does it one way that a lot of people don't like - the archers are a threat because it's believable, so, the archers become high level minions. It's pure meta-gaming. The "level" of an NPC is relative to the PC's. So, yes, D&D does have a mechanic where 25 trained archers can be a threat - it's called scaling.

If the PC's were 3rd level, the archers would be 2nd level minions - Dead party. If the party is 15th level, the archers are 17th level minions with a handful of standard monsters in there as well. Again, dead party.

The problem is, a lot of people seem to have difficulty wrapping their head around the idea that level is fluid and an entirely meta-game concept.

Since I don't play 4E I would not know this. Which is why I said I would like to see rules in 5E to address it.

A red dragon is not the same threat as 25 archers. A dragon especially one that has the upper and is in the air and knows the PCs are coming for it is a huge threat and that is how it should be for a beast that can fly , breath nasty stuff on you and if it wants can grapple and take off and drop you from high in the air.

That being said while 25 archers should not be the same threat as the dragon they should still pose some kind of risk not be a cake walk.

I tend to level my city guard and things like that as the players level not as high but enough the make a decent challenge. I have been told by many people that this is not in the RAW or the RAI and just bad DMing.

 

[Steely_Dan]

I tend to level my city guard and things like that as the players level not as high but enough the make a decent challenge. I have been told by many people that this is not in the RAW or the RAI and just bad DMing.

But that brings up the problem of the barmaid levelling with you.

 

[Elf Witch]

This is pretty much the heart of it. I've said it multiple times before, this is a social contract issue. See, this:



has never been represented in D&D in any edition. A 15th level PC in AD&D is a god. Pure and simple. This is a character that can slay gods, has amassed more wealth than empires, and can stare down dragons (multiple). Same goes in 3e. 4e is the same, only it jacks the number up to about 25 because of a flatter power progression.

But, at no time in the game's history was a high level character simply "well trained and very competent".

I really wish I could find the thread that talks about the 20th level lich vs 1 million 5th level characters where it was reasonably argued that the lich had a decent chance of winning.

So because it has never been the standard in DnD then that is is a good reason not to ever try and do it?

I know I am not alone in wanting a rule set that gives me the chance to play different types of fantasy games.

If the designers truly want to make a modular game with dials then this is something that should be looked at.

I am a pretty great DM when it comes to story telling and world building but I suck at game design it is just not by forte. I run changes through several people I know to get an idea if it is a good one.

So I would buy a rule set that let me play a high level game that is more realistic less wuxia and still let me play DnD. I like to run long term campaigns and while I do use a slow progression for XP the PC eventually reach higher levels. There are times an E6 or E9 works just great for what I want. But there are times that I want to introduce higher level threats like ancient dragons and liches without the accompanying unstoppable PCs.

As others have said I could try and find a different game and in the end that is what I am probably going to do which means that I won't be buying anything from WOTC or Pazio for that matter.

It is kind of hard to find players for other games most people I know just want to play DnD because it is what they know it, it is easy to find the books and it is the most common fantasy game.

So while I am getting burned out on DnD especially the prep time my players would stage a revolt if I switched to something else.

 

[Elf Witch]

Someone earlier responded to "What happens to a hero in a burning building?" with "The same thing that happens to everyone else," paraphrasing of course. If the answer to both burning buildings and lava is "you die," there's not much granularity there. Either you die, or you're immune, with no middle ground.

If you try to introduce a middle ground with some magic charm that lets you make a Fort save to avoid petrification, well, why don't you just make that the default again? Getting into a staring contest with a medusa is stupid and unnecessarily risky, but it could easily be something that a hero could choose to do at a certain point.

And, again, I would point out the whole "Perseus was a low-level hero" thing. A 3e medusa has a DC 15 gaze attack; if we're feeling charitable for Perseus, we could stat him as a 5th-level rogue with 14 Con, giving him a +4 Fort. That's a 50/50 shot to save, and with the medusa getting both the passive gaze when he looks at her and an active gaze on her turn, that means that if Perseus looks directly at her he's statistically going to lose that contest in one round. So as far as Perseus and other low-level heroes are concerned, you can't get into a staring contest with Medusa. That shouldn't prevent the Hulk from staring at her nonchalantly and making catcalls because he's just that tough, because the assumptions for realistic vs. superhuman heroes are different.



This. This right here. The problem here isn't that high-level characters are nigh unto gods (which they are) or that bunches of mooks aren't a threat (which they aren't) but that (A) you were metagaming "Oh, the DM wouldn't send a non-level-appropriate encounter against us" and (B) you decided to slaughter the guards despite being a theoretically good party.

Regarding CR, I quite often throw encounters against my parties that are CR +8 or higher by the rules at my party when faced head-on but easier if you take them on intelligently--like the medusa example above, it's possible to take on 1000 archers yourself as a 15th level character, but you'd have to be a moron or suicidal to chance it when there are much better solutions and if you don't just charge in mindlessly it works out to more like a CR +1 challenge. So you were right to note that they were known for their archers and think that perhaps, just perhaps, they might have something that might make them actually a threat; CR is a terrible guideline, and DMs can throw ranges of encounters at you in any case, so it's possible that they could have threatened you.

It's one thing to say "Gee, we've fought archers before, these guys don't have anything indicating that they're exceptional, I doubt they're a threat--kill them!" but entirely another to say "Gee, these guys are known for their excellent archers, and we don't have much experience against massed archers, but the DM wouldn't throw an encounter of too high CR against us! Charge!"

Regarding alignment, what in Baator was your party thinking? Why would your theoretically-good party, when faced with a misunderstanding and offered a chance to just talk to someone or leave, decide on the route of violence? Hell, I'm currently playing in a high-power game as a 10th level "monk" (i.e. a mostly-noncasting multiclassed monstrosity that fights unarmed and unarmored) who is a psychopathic chaotic evil missionary for a chaotic evil religion and who can slaughter pretty much anything with fewer than 7 HD that ends its turn within 100 feet of him, and even he doesn't go crazy and slaughter everything in sight until he knows that they're actually enemies.

The two problems with that scenario are really that your DM was expecting your party to act a lot differently than you did, and that the rogue went off and provoked them without party consensus. If I were the DM in that situation--well, first of all, there is no one in my group with better rules knowledge, so no one would pull the "By the CR guidelines..." stuff with me, but that aside, if I were the DM in that situation, I'd be surprised with a good party suddenly changing their tune as well. I'd say a chat with your group and DM about good vs. bad metagaming and playstyle expectations would be a lot more useful in your case than making houserules to fix what ain't broke.

I really think part of the issue was the whole idea that we were supposed to get the artifact and the DM put an obstacle in our way to do so. That was the drift of the metagame conversation while we waited for the DM to return. How do we overcome this and "win" by getting the artifact.

Remember we thought that we were doing the right that we were saving the world. The DM was a fair DM if we had made our sense motive checks or picked up on the clues that we missed that we were being manipulated we would have figured it out.

For the DM it was the last straw. He was already starting to feel burned out by the sheer amount of prep time it took to run the game. And the realization that at this level it would be hard to stop us by any normal city, army or government made him realize this was not the kind of game he wanted to run.

The reason I brought this is up was to point out how often players use metagame thinking to influence what their character does.

The whole I will jump off this cliff because I know I will live or I will chug this vial of poison because I can or an army phew they can't touch me.

It has the potential to ruin the feel of the game when it happens.

Which is why I like rules that make even a high level character without magic to protect them worry about the real possibility of dying if they fall from an air ship. Or pause and think is taking the chance of being hit by dozens of arrows worth it.

 

[pemerton]

So are you actually stating that in your perception of these movies the characters actually somehow have this meta knowledge?

Neither stating it nor implying it. As I said, "the PCs are thrust into situations where they must make dramatic choices of one sort or another, and the players, in making those choices, take account of the metagame resources (such as hp) to which they have access."

The players know they have the relevant resources (at least in standard D&D, in which players track their own hit points, roll their own saving throws knowing their bonuses, etc; and the approach that seems to have had some sway in the early 80s, of GMs tracking hp and telling players "You feel strong", "You feel pretty beaten up", etc, seems to rely heavily on hp-as-meat - of which I'm not a big fan).

But the heart of the greatness of the roleplay experience, IMO, is moving from the audience chair to being actually between the ears of the star. And if you carry this meta information with you then you have failed to truly get there.

Well, in most games with an action point or fate point mechanic it would be expected that players would plan around their possession of such resources. I don't think hit points are very different. And, indeed, Raven Crowking used to argue that it was via this process that hit points achieve a type of "impairment effect": players whose PCs have fewer of them will play more cautiously and less recklessly.

My own view is that if you don't want players to play their PCs keeping in mind their access to metagame resources, don't give them the resources. If I want to play a game without metagame, I will play a system whose mechanics support that. There are many such good systems available - Runquest is in my view just about the best on any objective measure, but for reasons of nostalgia and quirkiness I have a very soft spot for Rolemaster. I've never played GURPS, HERO or C&S but I'm sure any of them does a reasonable job also.

TL;DR: What's the point of giving PCs hit points if players are not expected to use them?